Dimensio:HenryFnord: kukukupo: I still fail to understand how you can FORCE someone to do business with you. Then again, if the government can force you to buy a product, I guess it is only fair that you can force a business to sell it to you.

"No coloreds"

This circumstance is different. This person's discrimination is motivated by religious belief, therefore it must be allowed. Religious belief creates special justification otherwise not present for objectionable behaviour.

What if you religious belief include "No coloreds"?

Fark religious beliefs. Just because someone choices to believe in a sky wizard, doesn't mean they deserve special rights.

FTA (in a letter he wrote to some gay people): "It's not too late to change your behavior."

They always focus on the behavior. Love the sinner, hate the sin. It's the acting it out part they dwell on, not the impulses or urges or preference or identity, but the actual physical act of gay sex they can't seem to stop thinking about.

physt:Dimensio: HenryFnord: kukukupo: I still fail to understand how you can FORCE someone to do business with you. Then again, if the government can force you to buy a product, I guess it is only fair that you can force a business to sell it to you.

"No coloreds"

This circumstance is different. This person's discrimination is motivated by religious belief, therefore it must be allowed. Religious belief creates special justification otherwise not present for objectionable behaviour.

What if you religious belief include "No coloreds"?

Fark religious beliefs. Just because someone choices to believe in a sky wizard, doesn't mean they deserve special rights.

Dimensio:HenryFnord: kukukupo: I still fail to understand how you can FORCE someone to do business with you. Then again, if the government can force you to buy a product, I guess it is only fair that you can force a business to sell it to you.

"No coloreds"

This circumstance is different. This person's discrimination is motivated by religious belief, therefore it must be allowed. Religious belief creates special justification otherwise not present for objectionable behaviour.

Is there a limit on the use of religion to justify not following laws? Do you also think Hobby Lobby has the right to refuse to offer their employees health insurance that includes coverage for birth control based on the owner's religious belief?.

ElwoodCuse:Penoatle: Private business, private rules. Why is this so hard to understand?

Really, someone tell me why people cannot operate their business the way they want to. Why do we get this foamy BS from either side.

I could care less but I know this thread will blow up with the usual crap.

You're not a private business if you open your doors to the public. This has been the law for decades.

Does "open your doors to the public" apply to a Bed and Breakfast, where you have to make reservations?I could see that statement applying to a restaurant or store or whatever where people can just walk in off the street, but isn't this a little different?I'm not really familiar with the laws around this.

Gay couples have a right to equal access to public accommodations. Private business owners have the right to be homophobic dickheads. When push comes to shove in a court action to resolve this conflict, guess who almost always wins?

Hint: There has to be a legitimate business interest for the refusal of service.

mistrmind:rikkitikkitavi: Seriously? Another one of these threads? FARK has become the rally point for the LGBT community of late. There truly is no hate like the oppressed with a enough to finance a lawsuit.

DGS:If he wants to run his business that way, go for it. He has that freedom. Of course, others have the freedom to make it clear to other potential customers that the individual running that establishment is a bigot because god. That may dissuade others from wanting to give him business... just as it may make others want to give him business. Something something free market something.

kukukupo:I still fail to understand how you can FORCE someone to do business with you. Then again, if the government can force you to buy a product, I guess it is only fair that you can force a business to sell it to you.

You can't. But The Free MarketTM can force people to keep their ugly and hateful thoughts to themselves.

whatsupchuck:Gay couples have a right to equal access to public accommodations. Private business owners have the right to be homophobic dickheads. When push comes to shove in a court action to resolve this conflict, guess who almost always wins?

Hint: There has to be a legitimate business interest for the refusal of service.

I'm not sure that's true. The basic problem here is that while gay marriage may be legal, anti-discrimination laws against LGBT individuals are not on the books. The business owner can't overtly discriminate and deny service based on race like putting up a "No Coloreds" sign. But he can refuse service to gay couples, and he's legally ok to do so. Now, what you hope is that fair minded people use the power of moral outrage to either change this guy's position or drive him out of business, but if Chick-Fil-A is any example, that won't happen.

By the way, I'm completely in favor of protests, and using every other legal means to drive him out of business. If you are going to take that strident a stand, you better be prepared to accept and deal with the fallout as a result.

Fafai:FTA (in a letter he wrote to some gay people): "It's not too late to change your behavior."

They always focus on the behavior. Love the sinner, hate the sin. It's the acting it out part they dwell on, not the impulses or urges or preference or identity, but the actual physical act of gay sex they can't seem to stop thinking about.

I'm pro-the gay marriage but what is wrong with love the sinner hate the sin? Conceptually I like the idea of Christians trying to love (or at least their God doing so) everyone but not liking individual acts.Sort of like chronic gamblers: they love the person but don't like they spend every paycheck on slot machines.So while you might not like their choice of seeing being gay as a bad behavior it doesn't mean their entire system is flawed.

Dimensio:HenryFnord: kukukupo: I still fail to understand how you can FORCE someone to do business with you. Then again, if the government can force you to buy a product, I guess it is only fair that you can force a business to sell it to you.

"No coloreds"

This circumstance is different. This person's discrimination is motivated by religious belief, therefore it must be allowed. Religious belief creates special justification otherwise not present for objectionable behaviour.

False.

This person's CLAIM is that it's motivated by religious belief, yet they seem to ONLY APPLY said belief when it comes to same-sex couples.

Otherwise, they'd refuse service to anyone who didn't share their religious beliefs: no Jews, no Muslims, no atheists, no pagans, no DIVORCED people, and so on.

The "justification" you refer to applies to not being discriminated because of your OWN religious affiliation; if you're Hindu the B&B can't deny you service because you're a Hindu. It's not a club you can use to conveniently exclude a section of the general population from services you provide to the general population. Of course this doesn't apply to religious organizations; a Catholic church doesn't have to host a Hindu wedding. But this B&B isn't a church - it just wants to be a B&B that conveniently only ever has heterosexuals present.

Plus if you gave your "justification" ANY amount of thought, you'd realize it's just a smokescreen: let's use an obvious example:

A: Evangelical B&B owner claims he has the right to deny service if it would "violate his beliefs"B: Potential client is a Muslim who will want to pray in his rented room

Whose religious beliefs trump whose? If A wins, then it's an obvious discrimination of B on the basis of religion which is a violation of the 14th Amendment. If B wins, then it's (by your logic) discrimination of A on the basis of religion which is a violation of the 14th Amendment.

Close2TheEdge:whatsupchuck: Gay couples have a right to equal access to public accommodations. Private business owners have the right to be homophobic dickheads. When push comes to shove in a court action to resolve this conflict, guess who almost always wins?

Hint: There has to be a legitimate business interest for the refusal of service.

I'm not sure that's true. The basic problem here is that while gay marriage may be legal, anti-discrimination laws against LGBT individuals are not on the books. The business owner can't overtly discriminate and deny service based on race like putting up a "No Coloreds" sign. But he can refuse service to gay couples, and he's legally ok to do so. Now, what you hope is that fair minded people use the power of moral outrage to either change this guy's position or drive him out of business, but if Chick-Fil-A is any example, that won't happen.

By the way, I'm completely in favor of protests, and using every other legal means to drive him out of business. If you are going to take that strident a stand, you better be prepared to accept and deal with the fallout as a result.

lelio:Fafai: FTA (in a letter he wrote to some gay people): "It's not too late to change your behavior."

They always focus on the behavior. Love the sinner, hate the sin. It's the acting it out part they dwell on, not the impulses or urges or preference or identity, but the actual physical act of gay sex they can't seem to stop thinking about.

I'm pro-the gay marriage but what is wrong with love the sinner hate the sin? Conceptually I like the idea of Christians trying to love (or at least their God doing so) everyone but not liking individual acts.Sort of like chronic gamblers: they love the person but don't like they spend every paycheck on slot machines.So while you might not like their choice of seeing being gay as a bad behavior it doesn't mean their entire system is flawed.

I'm just saying it always boils down to dick-in-ass sex. These people have their minds in the gutter.

Close2TheEdge:whatsupchuck: Gay couples have a right to equal access to public accommodations. Private business owners have the right to be homophobic dickheads. When push comes to shove in a court action to resolve this conflict, guess who almost always wins?

Hint: There has to be a legitimate business interest for the refusal of service.

I'm not sure that's true. The basic problem here is that while gay marriage may be legal, anti-discrimination laws against LGBT individuals are not on the books. The business owner can't overtly discriminate and deny service based on race like putting up a "No Coloreds" sign. But he can refuse service to gay couples, and he's legally ok to do so. Now, what you hope is that fair minded people use the power of moral outrage to either change this guy's position or drive him out of business, but if Chick-Fil-A is any example, that won't happen.

By the way, I'm completely in favor of protests, and using every other legal means to drive him out of business. If you are going to take that strident a stand, you better be prepared to accept and deal with the fallout as a result.

Varies by state. Sexual orientation is a protected class in WA and possibly any that have legal gay marriage. But you are correct, they can legally discriminate against any non protected class. Which is why we never read/care about furries being denied service. That said, the state can and should revoke your license for asshatish behavior. It's their choice to allow you to conduct business within the border.

flup:He's gonna learn the lesson ChickFilA learned. Their business has dwindled to nearly nothing since they publicly adopted their anti-gay stance.

Yes, Chik-fil-a learned they could make a tidy sum by serving cheap sandwiches to bigots who think their bigotry is religion. But B&Bs tend to cost a good bit more than a chicken sandwich. The tend to cost more than a hotel room in the area. The clientele at a B&B tend to like things like frilly or flowery rooms, antique furniture, lots of flowers, and brunch, so we're not talking about couples made up of stereotypically manly men and their obedient wives as a rule. In my experience, it's usually the wife who chooses the B&B, not the husband. And women tend to be less freaked out by gay people unless they are married to closet cases.

Of course, gay people are not a protected class the way black people are, so this man is within his legal rights to be a dick. And gay people are within their legal rights to let everyone know that the person who runs this B&B is a dick. If word gets out that the "lovely" B&B is administered by a hater, his may have no effect on his business. But I am willing to bet that it might.

rikkitikkitavi:flondrix: Buttknuckle: I think he/she is implying that 40% of B&B business is LGBT. Which could be very close to correct, assuming four times as many LGBT frequent B&B's than the straight community.

Straights: So the next time you stay at a B&B, think about how much buttsecks has been had on that bed and how much santorum is on the walls.

On the bright side, think of how many lesbians have scissored in that same bed.

These are not the lesbians you're looking for.

I'm free to imagine the lesbians looking however I like. They're supermodels for all I know.Just like I'm free to imagine the gay men as sweaty greased up muscular firemen with rock hard pecs, six pack abs, and I'll be in my bunk.

my lip balm addiction:kukukupo: I still fail to understand how you can FORCE someone to do business with you. Then again, if the government can force you to buy a product, I guess it is only fair that you can force a business to sell it to you.

No one is forcing anyone to do anything. Just outing the bigots so they know who not to do business with.

Why are they bigots? Really, why? They think gay marriage is wrong. Gays think being against gay marriage is wrong, does that make them a bigot? I don't see where being a bigot comes on to play here

my lip balm addiction:kukukupo: I still fail to understand how you can FORCE someone to do business with you. Then again, if the government can force you to buy a product, I guess it is only fair that you can force a business to sell it to you.

No one is forcing anyone to do anything. Just outing the bigots so they know who not to do business with.

Why are they bigots? Really, why? They think gay marriage is wrong. Can one not have an opinion another disagrees with without you putting a derogatory stamp of disapproval on it? Gays think being against gay marriage is wrong, does that make them a bigot? I just don't see where being a bigot comes on to play here

joness0154:qorkfiend: kukukupo: I still fail to understand how you can FORCE someone to do business with you. Then again, if the government can force you to buy a product, I guess it is only fair that you can force a business to sell it to you.

Who's forcing anyone to do anything?

Well, there is the cake shop in Colorado forced to make cakes for same sex couples. It's not a stretch to assume it could happen to this guy.

I'm as pro gay marriage as it comes, but disagree forcing these companies to do business if they don't want. I also don't understand why a couple would be adamant about giving that person business if they're adamantly against their lifestyle.

Change the source of this article to it being about black people or an interracial couple. Your defense of said bigotry still fits. Why should those racists have to do business with a couple of darkies or darkie apologists....

It's because it's wrong to discriminate. If you are a bigot you will be found and painted as the bigot you are. People should know you're a bigot so they can vote with their wallet. You have a right to be a bigot and we have a right to know so we can refuse to patronize.

I, likewise support the right for folks to discuss this policy, and refuse to do business with them based upon the commentary of their public statements.

Venues don't want to host same sex ceremonies: go for it. Just don't expect folks to be happy with that decision, and to talk about it in public as well. Freedom of speech is a sort of two edged sword. It isn't freedom from consequences. The market will eventually sort this sort of thing out.

A B&B not wanting to do business with gay or lesbian clients runs certain risks. Those risks are associated with that stance, and being vocal about it. I don't think that they should be sued for it, unless of course, they violate the privacy of their clients, or their potential clients, say by making public their list of folks that they won't do business with, and why, and then publish or allow to be published, lists that they've made.

Do I think it makes a helluva lot of sense to exclude clients, especially in these trying economic times? No. On a purely personal level, it shows a pettiness of spirit as well, and that is exactly the sort of thing that I'd like to know about. On a professional level, as well as on a personal one, as a chef, I want to know who is looking to exclude potential clients of my own. I don't want to cater for folks who are homophobes. If folks are talking in such a way to piss of my own clients, I want to know about it. I don't want to see them sued for it, but if they're making public statements like this, I want to know about it, so I can make sure that my business isn't associated with those statements. It's in my professional interests. On a personal level, I just don't want to help folks being dumbasses as well, and dickbags to boot.

The market will sort this out in time. In the meantime, please, proceed with your douchebaggery, because the more you talk about it, the better, because I'd rather you be up front about it, so I don't have to vet potential venues with a fine tooth comb. The louder you get, the easier it is to winnow lists down.

DeaH:DGS: If he wants to run his business that way, go for it. He has that freedom. Of course, others have the freedom to make it clear to other potential customers that the individual running that establishment is a bigot because god. That may dissuade others from wanting to give him business... just as it may make others want to give him business. Something something free market something.

Would he be free to refuse black customers?

We allow restaurants to discriminate based on age (lots of restaurants banning kids, etc.), allow pharmacists with religious beliefs to refuse to dispense the morning after pill, and allow hospitals & doctors to refuse to perform abortions.

Quite frankly, I think a business owner should be free to choose who he or she does business with, even if it discriminates. They likely won't be in business very long - allowing it to be replaced by a business that, if it wants to survive, doesn't discriminate.

wxboy:Dimensio: HenryFnord: kukukupo: I still fail to understand how you can FORCE someone to do business with you. Then again, if the government can force you to buy a product, I guess it is only fair that you can force a business to sell it to you.

"No coloreds"

This circumstance is different. This person's discrimination is motivated by religious belief, therefore it must be allowed. Religious belief creates special justification otherwise not present for objectionable behaviour.

Is there a limit on the use of religion to justify not following laws? Do you also think Hobby Lobby has the right to refuse to offer their employees health insurance that includes coverage for birth control based on the owner's religious belief?.

I do not. Religion not required to work at hobby lobby, and said religious preference would be neither employer not employees concern. Birth control being against your beliefs isn't my problem. You are welcome to not buy it or use it. My medical insurance is your problem as your employee. Your religion and beliefs have no place there. Cover me, and shut it.

Nacc:joness0154: qorkfiend: kukukupo: I still fail to understand how you can FORCE someone to do business with you. Then again, if the government can force you to buy a product, I guess it is only fair that you can force a business to sell it to you.

Who's forcing anyone to do anything?

Well, there is the cake shop in Colorado forced to make cakes for same sex couples. It's not a stretch to assume it could happen to this guy.

I'm as pro gay marriage as it comes, but disagree forcing these companies to do business if they don't want. I also don't understand why a couple would be adamant about giving that person business if they're adamantly against their lifestyle.

Change the source of this article to it being about black people or an interracial couple. Your defense of said bigotry still fits. Why should those racists have to do business with a couple of darkies or darkie apologists....

It's because it's wrong to discriminate. If you are a bigot you will be found and painted as the bigot you are. People should know you're a bigot so they can vote with their wallet. You have a right to be a bigot and we have a right to know so we can refuse to patronize.

Like my post above this, I think a business should be able to refuse to provide a service to anyone they please. Like you said, people will call them out as bigots and vote with their wallets. Hopefully that business doesn't prosper and is replaced with a business who provides their services to everyone.